Filed 10/16/20 P. v. Harris CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and 

Respondent,

v.

DARREN LARUE HARRIS,

Defendant and 

Appellant.

 B304797

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA067034)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________
2

In 2007, a jury found defendant and appellant Darren 

Larue Harris guilty of two counts of making criminal threats 

(Pen. Code, § 422 [counts 1 and 2]).

1 Defendant was 

sentenced to 30 years to life, consisting of concurrent terms 

on counts 1 and 2 of 25 years-to-life, pursuant to the three 

strikes law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667, subds. (b)–(i)),

because he had previously been convicted of five counts of 

robbery (§ 211), one count of attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664),

and one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)),

plus five years for a habitual criminal enhancement (§ 667, 

subd. (a)(1)).

In 2014, Harris filed a petition for recall of sentence 

pursuant to section 1170.126, enacted in 2012 by the 

passage of Proposition 36. The 2014 petition was denied by 

the sentencing judge, Mark Arnold, on the grounds that a 

violation of section 422 is a serious felony under section 

1192.7, subdivision (c)(38), rendering Harris ineligible for 

relief under the express terms of section 1170.126, 

subdivision (e)(1). Harris appealed, and we dismissed the 

appeal in 2015, after Harris declined appointed counsel and 

failed to retain private counsel.

On December 5, 2019, Harris filed a second petition for 

recall of sentence pursuant to section 1170.126, asserting he 

met the criteria under section 1170.126, subdivision (e), and 

that a recall of his sentence would not pose an unreasonable 

risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) On 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise stated.
3

January 17, 2020, Judge William C. Ryan dismissed Harris’s

December 5, 2019 petition, finding it untimely because it 

was filed more than two years after section 1170.126 took 

effect on November 7, 2012. (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) Harris 

appealed.

We appointed counsel to represent Harris in the 

current appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an 

opening brief asking this court to review the record 

independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, 441 (Wende). On June 9, 2020, we advised Harris that 

he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he 

wished us to consider. On June 22, 2020, Harris submitted a 

document captioned “Motion for Marden [sic] Hearing and 

request for the Attorney General to initiate an FBI 

(corruption probe) investigation.” On July 10, 2020, we 

granted permission to file the document as a supplemental 

brief. Harris’s supplemental brief recounted correspondence 

between Harris and the attorney appointed for this appeal, 

asserting that the appointed attorney deprived Harris of due 

process by wrongfully advising him that his conviction for

violating section 422 (criminal threats) is a serious felony, 

and that he was not eligible for resentencing under section 

1170.126. Harris’s supplemental briefing did not address 

the trial court’s ruling that Harris was no longer eligible for 

resentencing at the time he filed his petition, absent a 

showing of good cause. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).)

On August 10, 2020, Harris filed a document captioned 

“Amendment to Marsden Hearing Request/Motion,” which 
4

we will refer to as the Amendment. The Amendment 

corrected a citation in Harris’s previous briefing and raised 

various arguments under Penal Code section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1), that do not overcome the untimely nature 

of his resentencing petition.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied 

that Harris’s appointed attorney has fully complied with his 

responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist, with 

respect to either the merits of the appeal or the Marsden 

motion. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The trial court’s 

order is affirmed.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.